Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 72964 January 7, 1988

FILOMENO URBANO, petitioner,
vs.
HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents

 
FACTS: Marcelino Javier opened the irrigation of a canal by means of cutting grass which caused the flooding of the storage area of the
petitioner. Petitioner got angry and demanded Javier to pay for the soaked palay. Javier refused and a quarrel between them ensued. Urbano
unsheathed his bolo and hacked Javier hitting him on the right hand and left leg. Javier went to the hospital for the treatment of the wounds. Two
weeks after, Javier returned to his farm and tended to his tobacco plants.
Then, on a fateful day of November 14, Javier was rushed to the hospital. Doctors findings showed that he was suffering from tetanus infection.
The next day, Javier died.

RTC and CA found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide. Petitioner raised the case to the SC arguing that the cause of the
death of Javier was due to his own negligence.

 
ISSUE: WON Urbano’s action was the proximate cause of the death of Javier.
 
HELD: NO. Pursuant to this provision “an accused is criminally responsible for acts committed by him in violation of law and for all the natural
and logical consequences resulting therefrom. The rule is that the death of the victim must be the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the
wounds inflicted upon him by the accused
The petitioner reiterates his position that the proximate cause of the death of Marcelo Javier was due to his own negligence, that Dr. Mario
Meneses found no tetanus in the injury, and that Javier got infected with tetanus when after two weeks he returned to his farm and tended his
tobacco plants with his bare hands exposing the wound to harmful elements like tetanus germs.

Consequently, Javier’s wound could have been infected with tetanus after the hacking incident. Considering the circumstance surrounding
Javier’s death, his wound could have been infected by tetanus 2 or 3 or a few but not 20 to 22 days before he died. The medical findings,
however, lead us to a distinct possibility that the infection of the wound by tetanus was an efficient intervening cause later or between the time
Javier was wounded to the time of his death. The infection was, therefore, distinct and foreign to the crime.

And if an independent negligent act or defective condition sets into operation the instances which result in injury because of the prior defective
condition, such subsequent act or condition is the proximate cause.

CA’s decision was SET ASIDE and petioner is ACQUITED of the crime of homicide.
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 171951               August 28, 2009

AMADO ALVARADO GARCIA, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

DECISION

FACTS: 

Amado Garcia and Fidel Foz Jr., had a drinking spree in the morning of September 1999 that lasted the until the evening of that day. Because of
the blaring noise of the videoke machine that the two were enjoying, Manuel Chy, told the group to quiet down. Two days after, the met again on
a wedding and again, Chy told the two to stop singing. On the next day, the two, now with a friend, decided to have a drinking session and later
moved to Punta.
On their way to Punta, they saw Chy. The petitioner suddenly assaulted Chy and struck him on the lower part of his head with a bottle. When Chy
found a way to escape, he rushed to his home and phoned his wife and told her to call the police. When they arrived, they found Chy unconcsious
and later pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital

The petitioner was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide. The petitioner contended that he should only be charged with slight
physical injuries as his assault on Chy was not he cause of his death.

ISSUE: WON Garcia is liable for Manuel Chy’s death

HELD:

 YES. It can be reasonably inferred from the foregoing statements that the emotional strain from the beating aggravated Chy’s delicate
constitution and led to his death. The inevitable conclusion then surfaces that the myocardial infarction suffered by the victim was the direct,
natural and logical consequence of the felony that petitioner had intended to commit.
The essential requisites for the application of this Article 4 of the RPC are: (a) the intended act is felonious; (b) the resulting act is likewise a
felony; and (c) the unintended albeit graver wrong was primarily caused by the actor’s wrongful acts. Hence, the fact that Chy was previously
afflicted with a heart ailment does not alter petitioner’s liability for his death. a person committing a felony is responsible for all the natural and
logical consequences resulting from it although the unlawful act performed is different from the one he intended.
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-37507 June 7, 1977

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff- appellee,

vs.
WILLIAM PAGE, defendant- appellant.

FACTS:

William Page and his friend since boyhood, Crisanto Camposano held up a jeep. Page sat in front of the jeepney
holding a balisong, while Camposano seated himself at the back, with a revolving. Veronica Balacapo, one of the
passengers of the jeepney at the back, jumped out of the vehicle during the course of the holdup. She was
subsequently brought to a hospital by a good samaritan but she was declared to be dead upon arrival.

The trial court herein convicted Camposano and Page of the crime of robbery with homicide. Camposano died while
he was being apprehended for a different crime. Page insists that he cannot be made liable for Balacapo’s death
because he had nothing to do with it. He reiterated that he was at the front of the jeepney while Camposano was the
one threatening Balacapo at the back of the jeepney.

ISSUE:

WON Page is guilty of the crime herein of robbery with homicide acting as a co-conspirator with Camposano.

HELD:

Yes. William Page is guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide acting as a co-conspirator with Camposano.

The Court held as a rule that “if a man creates in another person's mind an immediate sense of danger, which causes
such person to try to escape, and, in so doing, the latter injures himself, the man who creates such a state of mind is
responsible for the resulting injuries (People vs. Toling, L-27097, January 17, 1975, 62 SCRA 17,33)”.

If the victim herein jumped out of the jeepney, it must have been because she was in mortal dread that Camposano
would shoot her. Of course, it was Camposano who directly brought about Balacapo’s death. Whether Balacapo
jumped from the jeepney or whether
Camposano kicked and pushed her and her sister out of the jeepney, Camposano’s culpability for that flagitious deed
cannot be disputed.

However, there was not a scintilla of doubt that a conspiracy to commit robbery existed between Page and
Camposano. Their behavior inside the jeepney disclosed a synchronization of their actions, evincing a prior concert
and plan to commit robbery with violence against and intimidation of persons. Page should answer for all the
consequences of the conspiracy, including the homicide which was intertwined with the robbery committed by his
conspirator. The homicide was committed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. Generally, when robbery with
homicide has been proven, all those who had taken part in the robbery are guilty of the special complex crime unless
it appears that they endeavored to prevent the homicide. The same rule is followed in Spanish jurisprudence. Of
course, Page did not kill the victim. But under the rules of conspiracy, he is deemed to be a co-principal in the robbery
with homicide.
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

[ GR No. 103119, Oct 21, 1992 ]

SULPICIO INTOD v. CA +

DECISION

Facts:

In the morning of February 4, 1979, Sulpicio Intod, Jorge Pangasian, Santos Tubio and Avelino Daligdig went to Salvador
Mandaya's house... and asked him to go with them to the house of Bernardina Palangpangan.

Thereafter, Mandaya and

Intod, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig had a meeting with Aniceto Dumalagan. He told Mandaya that he wanted Palangpangan to be
killed because of a land dispute between them and that Mandaya should accompany the four (4) men, otherwise, he would also be
killed.

At about 10:00 o'clock in the evening of the same day,... Mandaya, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig, all armed with firearms, arrived
at Palangpangan's house, At the instance of his companions, Mandaya pointed the location... of Palangpangan's bedroom.
Thereafter, Petitioner, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig fired at said room. It turned out; however, that Palangpangan was in another
City and her home was then occupied by her son-in-law and his family. No one was in the room when the accused fired the... shots.
No one was hit by the gun fire.

After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted Intod of attempted murder.

Petitioner seeks from this Court a modification of the judgment by holding him liable only for an impossible... crime

Issues:

Petitioner contends that, Palangpangan's absence from her room on the night he and his companions riddled it with bullets made
the crime inherently impossible.

Held:

The Revised Penal Code, inspired by the Positivist School, recognizes in the offender his formidability,[7] and... now penalizes an
act which were it not aimed at something quite impossible or carried out with means which prove inadequate, would constitute a
felony against person or against property.[8] The rationale of Article 4(2) is to... punish such criminal tendencies.

To be impossible under this clause, the act intended by the offender must be by its nature one impossible of... accomplishment.[11]
There must be either (1) legal impossibility, or (2) physical impossibility of accomplishing the intended act[12] in order to qualify the
act as an impossible... crime.

Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts, even if completed, would not amount to a crime.[13] Thus:

Legal impossibility would apply to those circumstances where (1) the motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in violation
of the law; (2) there is intention to perform the physical act; (3) there is a performance of the intended physical act; and (4) the...
consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a crime.

The impossibility of killing a person already dead[15] falls in this category.

On the other hand, factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent
the consummation of the intended crime.[16] One example is the man who puts his hand in the coat... pocket of another with the
intention to steal the latter's wallet and finds the pocket empty.

The case at bar belongs to this category. Petitioner shoots the place where he thought his victim would be, although in reality, the
victim was not present in said place and thus, the petitioner failed to accomplish his end.

In the Philippines, the Revised Penal Code, in Article 4(2), expressly provided for impossible crimes and made them punishable.
WE hereby hold Petitioner guilty of an impossible crime Having in mind the social danger and degree of criminality shown by
Petitioner, this Court sentences him to suffer the penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, together with the accessory penalties...
provided by the law, and to pay the costs.

Principles:

The rationale of Article 4(2) is to... punish such criminal tendencies

 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 162540               July 13, 2009

GEMMA T. JACINTO, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

DECISION

FACTS:

Petitioner, together with two other women, was charged with the crime of Qualified Theft, allegedly committed as follows:

That on or about and sometime in the month of July 1997, in Kalookan City, Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, conspiring together and mutually helping one another, being then all employees of MEGA FOAM INTERNATIONAL
INC., herein represented by JOSEPH DYHENGCO Y CO, and as such had free access inside the aforesaid establishment, with grave abuse of
trust and confidence reposed upon them with intent to gain and without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and deposited in their own account, Banco De Oro Check No. 0132649 dated July 14, 1997 in the
sum of P10,000.00, representing payment made by customer Baby Aquino to the Mega Foam Int’l. Inc. to the damage and prejudice of the latter
in the aforesaid stated amount of P10,000.00.
The trial court rendered a decision finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
On appeal, the appellate court affirmed petitioner’s conviction and her subsequent MR was denied.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:Whether or not a worthless check can be the object of theft.

HELD:

In this case, petitioner unlawfully took the postdated check belonging to Mega Foam, but the same was apparently without value, as it was
subsequently dishonored. Thus, the question arises on whether the crime of qualified theft was actually produced.

The Court must resolve the issue in the negative.

The requisites of an impossible crime are: (1) that the act performed would be an offense against persons or property; (2) that the act was done
with evil intent; and (3) that its accomplishment was inherently impossible, or the means employed was either inadequate or ineffectual.

The fact that petitioner was later entrapped receiving the P5,000.00 marked money, which she thought was the cash replacement for the
dishonored check, is of no moment. The Court held in Valenzuela v. Peoplethat under the definition of theft in Article 308 of the Revised Penal
Code, there is only one operative act of execution by the actor involved in theft ─ the taking of personal property of another.

There can be no question that as of the time that petitioner took possession of the check meant for Mega Foam, she had performed all the
acts to consummate the crime of theft, had it not been impossible of accomplishment in this case. The circumstance of petitioner receiving
the P5,000.00 cash as supposed replacement for the dishonored check was no longer necessary for the consummation of the crime of qualified
theft.

Since the crime of theft is not a continuing offense, petitioner’s act of receiving the cash replacement should not be considered as a continuation
of the theft. At most, the fact that petitioner was caught receiving the marked money was merely corroborating evidence to strengthen proof of
her intent to gain.
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 138033             February 22, 2006

RENATO BALEROS, JR., Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

DECISION

FACTS:
•    Martina Lourdes Albano (Malou), a medical student of the University of Sto. Tomas, stayed at Room 307 with her maid Marvilou.
•    December 12 10:30 pm: Malou slept.  Her maid Marvilou slept on a folding bed right in front of her bedroom door.
•    December 13, 1991 1:00 am: Chito left the fraternity party with Robert Chan and Alberto wearing a barong tagalog, with t-shirt
inside, with short pants with stripes lent by Perla Duran and leather shoes.
•    December 13, 1991 1:30 am: Chito arrived at the Building wearing a white t-shirt with fraternity symbols and black shorts with the
brand name “Adidas” from a party.  He requested permission from S/G Ferolin to go up to Room 306 leased by Ansbert Co but at
that time only Joseph Bernard Africa was there.  Although Chito could not produce the required written authorization, he let him in
because he will be a tenant in the coming summer break.  Joseph was awaken by Chito’s knock so he glanced the alarm clock and
let him.  He saw him wearing dark-colored shorts and white T-shirt.
•    December 13, 1991 1:50 am: Renato Baleros, Jr. y David (Chito) forcefully covered the face of Martina Lourdes T. Albano with a
piece of cloth soaked in chemical with dizzying effects.  This awakened Malou.  She struggled but could not move because she was
tightly held and pinned down on the bed.  She kicked him and got her right hand free to squeeze his sex organ causing him to let
her go.  She went for the bedroom door and woke up Marvilou.  She also intercommed S/G Ferolin saying: "may pumasok sa kuarto
ko pinagtangkaan ako".  Malou proceed to Room 310 where her classmates Christian Alcala, Bernard Baptista, Lutgardo Acosta
and Rommel Montes were staying and seeked help.  She saw her bed in a mess and noticed that her nightdress was stained with
blue.  Aside from the window with grills which she had originally left opened, another window inside her bedroom which leads to
Room 306 was now open. 
•    December 13, 1991 3:30 pm: Christian and his roommates, Bernard and Lutgardo were asked by the CIS people to look for
anything not belonging to them in their Unit when Rommel Montes went inside and found a grey bag.
o    Christian knew right away that it belonged to Chito.  It contained white t-shirt with fraternity symbol, a Black Adidas short pants, a
handkerchief , 3 white T-shirts, an underwear and socks.
•    Chito pleaded NOT Guilty
•    13 witnesses including Malou and her classmates, Joseph Bernard Africa, Rommel Montes, Renato Alagadan and Christian
Alcala
o    Malou: Chito was her classmate whom he rejected a week before
o    Chito: He only slept and at about 6 to 6:30, Joseph told him that something had happened and asked him to follow him to Room
310 carrying his gray bag and since no one was there they went to Room 401 where Renato Alagadan was. He left his grey bag at
Room 306 the day before.
•    handkerchief and Malou’s night dress both contained chloroform, a volatile poison which causes first degree burn exactly like
what Malou sustained on that part of her face where the chemical-soaked cloth had been pressed
•    RTC: guilty of attempted rape
•    CA: Affirmed

ISSUE: W/N Chito is guilty of attempted rape

HELD: NO. REVERSED and SET ASIDE. ACQUITTING Renato D. Baleros, Jr. of the charge for attempted rape. GUILTY of light
coercion and is accordingly sentenced to 30 days of arresto menor and to pay a fine of P200.00, with the accessory penalties
thereof and to pay the costs.

•    Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, rape is committed by a man who has carnal knowledge or intercourse with a
woman under any of the following circumstances: (1) By using force or intimidation; (2) When the woman is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious; and (3) When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. 
•    Under Article 6, in relation to the aforementioned article of the same code, rape is attempted when the offender commences the
commission of rape directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the crime of rape by
reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
o    whether or not the act of the petitioner, i.e., the pressing of a chemical-soaked cloth while on top of Malou, constitutes an overt
act of rape.
o    Overt or external act has been defined as some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular crime,
more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried out to its complete termination following its natural course, without being
frustrated by external obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete
offense
•    Chito was fully clothed and that there was no attempt on his part to undress Malou, let alone touch her private part
•    Verily, while the series of acts committed by the petitioner do not determine attempted rape, they constitute unjust vexation
punishable as light coercion under the second paragraph of Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code.
o    As it were, unjust vexation exists even without the element of restraint or compulsion for the reason that this term is broad
enough to include any human conduct which, although not productive of some physical or material harm, would unjustly annoy or
irritate an innocent person
o    That Malou, after the incident in question, cried while relating to her classmates what she perceived to be a sexual attack and
the fact that she filed a case for attempted rape proved beyond cavil that she was disturbed, if not distressed 
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 161651               June 8, 2011

ELVIRA LATEO y ELEAZAR, FRANCISCO ELCA y ARCAS, and BARTOLOME BALDEMOR y

MADRIGAL, Petitioners,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

DECISION

ESTAFA WITH FRAUDULENT MEANS

FACTS

1. Koh Tieck Heng, alias Teddy Koh, alias Tomas P. Flores was charged of estafa thru falsification of a commercial
document in the following manner:

A. After opening a savings account with SBTC under the name Tomas P. Flores and somehow illegally
obtained a PBC check issued by one F. Dycaico,
B. Accused making or causing alterations and changes in a genuine document w/c changed its meaning and
thereby affixing his signature at the back of the check, which check was cleared by the PBC.

2. On the second instance, accused did not perform all the acts of execution which should have produced the crime
of estafa thru falsification of a commercial document by reason of some cause other than his own spontaneous
desistance, that is, by timely discovery made by officials/employees of said bank of the forgery and falsification
made on the aforesaid check before payment could be made which led then and there to the apprehension of said
accused.

3. Under the two Informations, the mode of falsification attributed to the accused is that of having erased and altered
the dates and amounts of the checks in question, and superimposing over the original dates and amounts, thereby
making alterations and changes in genuine documents which changed their meaning. Accused misappropriated,
misapplied and converted to his own personal use and benefit checks in various amounts.

ISSUE

WON there was attempted estafa in the absence of deceit and damage

HELD

YES.
The fact that appellant was the possessor and utterer of the checks in question and having benefited from the
subsequent withdrawals, as well as having attempted to gain by trying to withdraw an amount thereon.
The use of the spurious checks is by itself fraud or deceit. The appellant made use of and benefited from
the falsified document is strong evidence that he either himself falsified it or caused the same to be
falsified, he being criminally responsible in either case. Since Heng is the only person who stood to be
benefited by the falsification of the document that was found in his possession, it is presumed that he is
the material author of such falsification

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. NO. 157057              June 26, 2007

LEONIDAS EPIFANIO Y LAZARO, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

DECISION

Subject Matter: Aggravating circumstance, Art.  14 of the Revised Penal Code

Facts:
Brothers Servillano, Melton and Michael Ferrer were having their drinking spree at their house but later decided to
proceed to Tidbits Videoke Bar to continue their drinking spree and to sing. Thereafter, Jaime Palaganas arrived
together with Ferdinand Palaganas and Virgilio Bautista. When Jaime Palaganas was singing, Melton Ferrer sang
with him. Jaime got irritated and insulted. He felt that he was being mocked by Melton that caused him to go to
the latter’s table and uttered statements which began the fight. Ferdinand sought help from Rujjeric Palaganas.
They went to the bar and upon seeing the Ferrers instructed Rujjeric to shoot them. Rujjeric Palaganas shot
Servillano, Melton and Michael with the use of unlicensed firearm. As a result, Melton was killed, Servillano was
fatally wounded and Michael was shot in his right shoulder.

Issues:
(1) Whether or not Rujjeric Palaganas was guilty of the crime of homicide and 2 counts of frustrated murder.

(2) Whether or not the use of the unlicensed firearm is a special aggravating circumstance which should be
appreciated by the court at the case at bar.

Held:
In the first issue, Rujjeric Palaganas is guilty of homicide for the death of Melton Ferrer, frustrated homicide for
fatally wounding Servillano Ferrer and attempted homicide for shooting Michael at his right shoulder.

On the second issue, yes, the unlicensed firearm is a special aggravating circumstance. An aggravating
circumstance was provided for under Presidential Decree No. 1866 as amended by Republic Act 8294 which is a
special law that was passed stating that: if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm,
such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance cannot be offset by an
ordinary mitigating circumstance. Voluntary surrender of the petitioner in this case is merely an ordinary mitigating
circumstance.
 FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 75032-33. December 1, 1992.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. (EMBAS) JOSE TIU, SANTOS AROCHA, RODOLFO

LEAL — Deceased, LUIS (LICAROS) DENOLAN, Accused-Appellants.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Reynold S. Fajardo, Lagunzad, Jr. and Juan Lanoria and Tayde for accused- appellant.

DECISION

FACTS:
CRUZ, J.:

As the carabao lowed in protest at the tugging rope, the killers struck. One of the victims dropped dead with a
bullet in his spine while the other crawled to hide with his bloodied leg. The darkness soon engulfed the killers as
they fled. But not before their faces were seen by the witnesses to the gory deed, by the light of the lamp and the
moon and the stars. 

On July 27, 1981, two informations for murder and frustrated murder were filed against Jose (Embas) Tiu, Santos
Arocha, Rodolfo Leal and Luis Licaros Denolan, for the killing of Warlito Jumangpang and the wounding of his
father, Otillo Jumangpang. The cases were docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 2682 and 2675, respectively, in the
Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte, and by agreement of the parties jointly tried on the merits.

At their arraignment, all the accused pleaded "not guilty." On November 20, 1984, the trial court dismissed the
case against Rodolfo Leal, who had died on July 9, 1984. On December 18, 1985, Judge Celso O. Conol rendered a
joint decision, 1 if the dispositive portion of which read as follows:cralawnad

WHEREFORE, finding accused Jose Tiu, Santos Arocha, Rodolfo Leal and Luis Denolan, guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Murder in Criminal Case No. 2682, qualified by treachery and there being no other
aggravating or mitigating circumstance present in the commission thereof, the Court hereby sentences the said
accused to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with the accessories of the law, to indemnify the heirs of
accused Warlito Jumangpang in the amount of P30,000.00, plus P10,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.

ISSUE: WON accused Jose Tiu, Santos Arocha, Rodolfo Leal and Luis Denolan, are criminally liable for the crime of
Murder?

HELD:

Yes. In Criminal Case No. 2675, Accused Jose Tiu, Santos Arocha, Rodolfo Leal and Luis Denolan are, likewise,
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Frustrated Murder, qualified by treachery, and there being no
attendant aggravating or mitigating circumstance present in the commission thereof and applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, are hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from SIX
(6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor, as minimum, to TWELVE (12) YEARS, FIVE (5) MONTHS and ELEVEN
(11) DAYS of Reclusion Temporal, as maximum, to indemnify the offended party, Otillo Jumangpang, in the
amount of P5,000.00 for actual damages, plus P10,000.00 for moral and exemplary damages, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.

Negligently, the decision also convicted the deceased Rodolfo Leal.

Tiu, Arocha and Denolan all appealed. Tiu died on May 16, 1988, resulting in the dismissal of the case against him
on November 28, 1988.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

The prosecution presented three eyewitnesses, viz., Otillo Jumangpang, his wife Vivencia, and their daughter
Lourdes. They testified that on April 30, 1981, at about 2:00 a.m., Otillo, who was sleeping with his wife Vivencia
and their seven children, was awakened by a noise outside their house in Sitio Pigan, Larangay Disakan of the
Municipality of Manukan, Zamboanga del Norte. With a flashlight, he saw that it was a carabao that was causing
the noise. He told Warlito to tie the animal. Warlito had difficulty in doing so and asked his father to help him. Otillo
went down. While he and Warlito were pulling the carabao, shots were fired from the direction of the road. Otillo
was hit on the right ankle joint and fell down. He crawled towards the back of the house near the kitchen. While
lying flat on the ground, he saw Embas Tiu, Santos Arocha, Rodolfo Leal, and Luis Licaros coming from the road. 2 

When the four men reached the front ladder of their house, they trained a flashlight on the body of Warlito, who
was sprawled motionless on the ground. 3 

Santos Arocha and Rodolfo Leal proceeded to the back of the house and went upstairs. Otillo heard them ask his
wife where he was. Silently, he crawled toward the bushes about 20 meters from their house. Santos and Rodolfo
ordered Vivencia and the children to go down, past Embas Tiu and Luis Licaros who were standing near the rear
ladder, carrying long firearms. Embas fired a warning shot and ordered them to lie flat on the ground. He asked
them where Otillo was but everyone kept silent. They remained lying on the ground until 6:00 a.m. when they
sensed that the men had left. 4 

Vivencia now called for Otillo who had lain hidden all the while. Seeing him wounded, she immediately took him to
the hospital, together with Warlito, with the aid of neighbors. Warlito was already beyond help. The autopsy of his
body revealed the cause of his death as "severed spinal cord secondary to fractured vertebral column second ary to
gun shot wound." 5 

The defense presented three of the surviving accused who all pleaded alibi. They all testified that on the night of
April 29, 1981. they were in the camp at Datagan, Disakan, Manukan, Zamboanga del Norte, together with several
other persons (who were not presented in court). 6 Their testimonies were corroborated by their friend, Baro
Magawa. 7 

Emiliano de los Reyes, who was the detachment commander-in-charge of the Civil Home Defense Force, testified
that on April 30, 1981, up to the time he left, he received no report of abuses committed by the herein accused. He
learned for the first time later that year that the accused had been charged with murder and frustrated murder. He
conducted an investigation but found that there was no evidence to support the charges. He admitted, however,
that the investigation was limited to interrogation of the accused. The family of the victim was not questioned. He
also failed to present a copy of the investigation report, claiming it had been misplaced. 8chanrobles law library

Jose Andata, another defense witness, testified that while a member of the NPA, he attended a meeting held on
April 30, 1981, in the house of a certain Ogis, where it was decided to liquidate Otillo for having cut down a narra
tree in Commander Porsin’s land without permission. That same afternoon, Jose, together with the groups of
Commanders Porsin and Tirong, started for Otillo’s place, which was about 7 hours walk from the house of Ogis.
About 100 meters before they reached Otillo’s house, Jose and the group of Tirong stopped and were ordered by
Porsin to stand guard. Porsin’s group then proceeded to Otillo’s house and after a few minutes Jose heard many
gunshots. Porsin later reported to Tirong that Otillo was able to escape. 9 

The attack which Jose claimed to have been made by the rebel group was, if it really happened, one day late. Jose
said the rebels reached Otillo’s place in the early morning of May 1, 1981, by which time, Warlito was already dead
and Otillo severely wounded. They had been attacked hours before in the morning of April 30, 1981.

The four accused were no strangers to the three eyewitnesses, who knew them as CHDF members who used to
pass by their house and ask for water. 10 

Lourdes and Vivencia identified Arocha and Leal as the persons who came up their house, which was lighted by a
lamp or "tingkarol" on top of the sewing machine that night of April 29, 1981. The moon and the stars were also
shining bright then.

Otillo recognized the four accused by the light from their flashlights and also of the moon and the stars.

The denials of the accused-appellants, corroborated only by their friend Magawa, cannot overthrow the positive
and categorical testimony of the prosecution eyewitnesses, who have not been shown to have any malicious motive
in testifying against them. Mere denial cannot prevail against the unequivocal declaration of credible witnesses
testifying on affirmative matters as in the case at bar.
Alibi is also a weak defense and cannot stand against the positive identification of the Accused-Appellants.
Moreover, they have not shown that it was impossible for them to have been present at Otillo’s place when the
shooting occurred, in view of the distance between that place and the place where they claimed to be that
morning.

Explaining her delay in reporting the crime, Lourdes said that her grandfather went to the police of Manukan but
was referred to the NBI. It is true that thirteen days elapsed from the time of the incident before they revealed the
identities of the accused-appellants to the NBI. But that was because their statements were not immediately taken
and they were asked to come back later.

The accused were known members of the notorious Civil Home Defense Force (which has since been disbanded for
its record of violence). This was the reason for the natural reluctance of ordinary individuals to participate in
litigations involving that organization. The failure of the prosecution witnesses to immediately report the
malefactors to the police officers who investigated the shooting is not difficult to understand. Otillo and his family
feared for their lives as the killers of Warlito were still at large and armed with the rifles they had used that
morning.

There was conspiracy among the accused-appellants because they were moved by the same desire when they went
to Otillo’s house and shot him and his son Warlito. It is plain that they acted in concert when they executed the
crimes they had agreed to commit.

We find that the trial court did not err in convicting Tiu, Arocha and Denolan.chanrobles law library

The conviction of Rodolfo Leal, who died on July 9, 1984, before the promulgation of the decision on December 18,
1985, must be set aside as null and void ab initio.

The criminal liability of Jose Tiu was extinguished by his death on May 16, 1988, while his appeal was pending.
However, his civil liability survived him and can be recovered against his estate.

Treachery qualified the killing of Warlito Jumangpang to murder, which was correctly punished with reclusion
perpetua and all the accessory penalties.

But the shooting of Otillo, also attended by treachery, was only attempted murder because, although the intent to
kill him was clearly established, he was shot only in the ankle. The doctrinal rule is that where the wound inflicted
on the victim is not sufficient to cause his death, the accused not having performed all the acts of execution that
would have brought it about, the crime is only attempted murder. 11 

Under Article 248 and Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for attempted murder is prision
correccional in it maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period. The medium period of this penalty should
be the maximum under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance.
One degree lower of the penalty for attempted murder is arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional medium.
Thus, for attempted murder, the accused Santos Arocha and Luis Denolan are sentenced to suffer the
Indeterminate penalty of 4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor as minimum to 8 years of prision mayor as
maximum.

The P30,000.00 indemnification for the heirs of Warlito Jumangpang should be increased to P50,000.00, consistent
with the current policy of this Court.

The motive of the killing has not been shown, but that is not necessary in view of the clear identification of the
killers. Still, one wonders what may have moved them to the gory deed that felled the father and killed his son as
they tugged at the lowing beast in the light of the moon and the stars. 

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED as above modified, with costs against the Accused-Appellants. It
is so ordered.

Padilla, Griño-Aquino and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

________________________________________________________
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 79123-25 January 9, 1989

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
EMELIANO TRINIDAD, accused-appellant.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Citizens Legal Assistance Office for accused-appellant.

Facts: Lolito Soriano is a fish dealer. His helpers were Ricardo Tan and Marcial Laroa. While
the three were driving on their way to Davao City to sell fish, accused Emeliano Trinidad asked
for a ride to Agusan del Norte. Tan, the driver at that time, suddenly heard two gunshots --
Soriano and Laroa slumped dead for both were hit on the head. Trinidad had used his carbine in
killing the two victims. Tan was able to get off the car and hail a jeepney passing by. However,
he noticed that Trinidad was also seated at the back of the said jeepney. Tan immediately got
off the jeepney, followed by Trinidad. When the jeepney started to drive away, Tan suddenly
clung to its side, but Trinidad fired two shots, one of which hit Tan on his right thigh. Tan jumped
from the jeep and fortunately a Philippine Constabulary member chanced upon him and helped
him board a bus for Butuan. Trinidad was charged with FRUSTRATED murder in relation to the
shooting of Tan.

Issues: W/N Trinidad is correct in contending that he can only be convicted of attempted
murder? YES

Held: Trinidad should only be held criminally liable for attempted murder.

Ratio: Trinidad had commenced the commission of the felony directly by overt acts but was
unable to perform all the acts of execution which would have produced it by reason of causes
other than his spontaneous desistance, such as, that the jeep to which TAN was clinging was in
motion, and there was a spare tire which shielded the other parts of his body.

Moreover, the wound on his thigh was not fatal and the doctrinal rule is that where the wound
inflicted on the victim is not sufficient to cause his death, the crime is only ATTEMPTED murder,
the accused not having performed all the acts of execution that would have brought about the
death (citing, People v. Pilones)

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 130601               December 4, 2000

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
RAFAEL DIOPITA y GUZMAN, accused-appellant.

DECISION

Facts:

Federico Lopez was accused of killing Rogelio Saldera & Rodolfo Padapat & Frustrated murder of Mario Seldera. They work in a
farmland in Nancalabaasan, Umingan, Pangasinan. On their way home on Nov. 15, 1991 at around 9pm they were met by Lopez
and another guy. They were in Trail beside Banila river. Lopez had a shot gun and shot the 3 of them thinking that they were already
dead, then he left. Mario survived and identified lopez.

Issues:WON Conviction is correct?

Held:

Modified especially damages

1. Mario is a credible witness & memory of massacre is deeply etched in his memory thus he remembered even minute details.
Natural reaction is to remember assailants & manner how crime‘s committed (People v Gomez). Shot gun wounds were verified.
PAGASA states that there was 60% illumination of moon at that time. 62% illumination in People v. Pueblas was found to be
sufficient in sustaining identification of accused. Mario was also well-adjusted to lighting since he‘s been walking for some time when
they were attacked (People v. Vacal). He was identified not by name but by knowledge of who accused was who frequented his
place before.

2. Alibi is weak. His alleged location was near enough to crime scene thus not impossible to reach it. Inconsistent witnesses.
Overridden by positive identification of a witness who doesn‘t posses ill motive to falsely testify against accused.

3. Defective information not assailed before accused waived right to do so. Each shot should be considered as one act thus liable
for three separate crimes, Complex crime (RPC-48) only when one act results to different felonies. There was treachery thus Mario
should have been for murder, but attempted not frustrated cause wounds were not fatal as attested to by doctor Damages: P50K
civilian indemnity fixed as proven by death. Moral damages: P50K. Temperate damages: may be without proof. Mario: no proof of
moral damagaes. Exemplary damages: only when there‘s aggravating circumstances. Actual damages represents unearned income
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 78781-82 October 15, 1991

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
PEDRO RAVELO, JERRY RAVELO, BONIFACIO "PATYONG" PADILLA, ROMEO ASPIRIN,
NICOLAS GUADALUPE AND HERMIE PAHIT, accused-appellants.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Robert J. Landas for acussed-appellants.

Facts:
Accused-appellants allegedly kidnapped by means of force one Reynaldo Gaurano on May 21,
1984. They then detained Reynaldo at the house of Pedro Ravelo, one of the accused.
Accused-appellants assaulted, attacked, and burned Reynaldo Gaurano and latter die as
consequence thereof.

On May 22, 1984; the accused-appellants kidnapped by means of force Joey Lugatiman and
was brought to Ravelo's house where he was tortured. Lugatiman was able to escape.

Lugatiman reported what happened to him and to Gaurano to the police authorities. RTC convicted the
accused-appellants of murder of Gaurano and frustrated murder of Lugatiman.

In this appeal, counsel contends that there can be no frustrated murder absent any proof of intent to
kill, which is an essential element of the offense of frustrated murder.  

Issue: 
Whether the statement by the accused stating that “Lugatiman” would be killed is sufficient proof
of intent to convict a person of frustrated murder.

Held: 
No

Ratio: 
In a crime of murder or an attempt of frustration thereof, the offender must have the intent or the
actual design to kill which must be manifested by external acts. A verbal expression is not
sufficient to show an actual design to perpetrate the act. Intent must be shown not only by a
statement of the aggressor, but also by the execution of all acts and the use of means
necessary to deliver a fatal blow while the victim is not placed in a position to defend himself.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 88724               April 3, 1990

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
CEILITO ORITA alias "Lito," defendant-appellant.

The Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

C. Manalo for defendant-appellant.

Lessons Applicable: No frustrated rape

Laws Applicable: Art. 6

FACTS:
•    March 20, 1983 Early Morning: Cristina S. Abayan, 19-year old freshman student at the St. Joseph's College, arrived at her boarding house
after her classmates brought her home from a party.  She knocked at the door of her boarding house when a frequent visitor of another
boarder held her and poked a knife to her neck.  Despite pleading for her release, he ordered her to go upstairs with him.  Since the door which
led to the 1st floor was locked from the inside, they used the back door to the second floor. With his left arm wrapped around her neck and his
right hand poking a "balisong" to her neck, he dragged her up the stairs. When they reached the second floor, he commanded herwith the knife
poked at her neck, to look for a room. They entered Abayan's room. He then pushed her hitting her head on the wall.  With one hand holding
the knife, he undressed himself. He then ordered her to take off her clothes. Scared, she took off her T-shirt, bra, pants and panty.  He ordered
her to lie down on the floor and then mounted her. He made her hold his penis and insert it in her vagina. Still poked with a knife, she did as
told but since she kept moving, only a portion of his penis entered her.  He then laid down on his back and commanded her to mount him. Still
only a small part of his penis was inserted into her vagina. When he had both his hands flat on the floor. She dashed out to the next room and
locked herself in. When he pursued her and climbed the partition, she ran to another room then another then she jumped out through a
window.
•    Still naked, she darted to the municipal building, 18 meters in front of the boarding house and knocked on the door. When there was no
answer, she ran around the building and knocked on the back door.  When the policemen who were inside the building opened the door, they
found her naked sitting on the stairs crying. Pat. Donceras, took off his jacket and wrapped it around her. Pat. Donceras and two other
policemen rushed to the boarding house  where they heard and saw somebody running away but failed to apprehend him due to darkness.  She
was taken to Eastern Samar Provincial Hospital where she was physically examined.
•    Her vulva had no abrasions or discharges.
•    RTC: frustrated rape

ISSUE: W/N there is frustrated rape.

HELD: NO. RTC MODIFIED. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua as well as to indemnify the
victim in the amount of P30,000
•    Correlating Art. 335 and Art. 6, there is no debate that the attempted and consummated stages apply to the crime of rape.
•    Requisites of a frustrated felony are:
o    (1) that the offender has performed all the acts of execution which would produce the felony
o    (2) that the felony is not produced due to causes independent of the perpetrator's will
•    attempted crime the purpose of the offender must be thwarted by a foreign force or agency which intervenes and compels him to stop prior
to the moment when he has performed all of the acts which should produce the crime as a consequence, which acts it is his intention to
perform
o    If he has performed all of the acts which should result in the consummation of the crime and voluntarily desists from proceeding further, it
can not be an attempt.
•    in the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of his victim he actually attains his purpose and, from that
moment also all the essential elements of the offense have been accomplished.  Any penetration of the female organ by the male organ is
sufficient. Entry of the labia or lips of the female organ, without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant
conviction. Necessarily, rape is attempted if there is no penetration of the female organ
•    The fact is that in a prosecution for rape, the accused may be convicted even on the sole basis of the victim's testimony if credible. Dr.
Zamora did not rule out penetration of the genital organ of the victim.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 90035 September 13, 1991

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
AMADEO HANGDAAN and ROMEL BALLOGAN, defendants. AMADEO
HANGDAAN, defendant-appellant.

Facts:
The accused-appellant Amadeo Hangdaan was convicted for the rape of Jocelyn Binoy, a 15-year old girl. 
His co-accused Romel Ballogan was not arraigned and tried as he remains at large.  Hangdaan was
sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the victim in the amount of P30,000.00

During the trial of the case, the prosecution established the following facts:[2]

"That in the evening of November 12, 1986 Jocelyn Binoy, student of the ISCAF, went to attend a program
at the Convention Hall Building.  After the program, went her dorm and go straight to the toilet for
necessity but two boys entered the comfort room named Romel and Amadeo they grabbed Jocelyn and
pushed her to the wall with Romel poking a knife at her side her panty was roughly removed and Romel
who tried to insert his penis in the vagina but was not able to penetrate they were in standing position.

They dragged Jocelyn to a hut across the river That Romel went on top of Jocelyn and succeeded in
raping her then Amadeo also went on top and tried to insert his penis but could not penetrate her as his
penis was too big. So Amadeo mashed the her nipples and breast. Then again Romel went on top for the
second time and again succeeded and  After Romel, Amadeo again went on top of Jocelyn and tried to
penetrate her but could not and for the 3rd time Romel again went on top Then again after Rommel,
Amadeo tried but simply could not put in his penis and just mashed the breast of Jocelyn.

Issue: WON The Accused Amadeo Hangdaan was guilty of consummated Rape?

Held:

Yes.The trial court convicted the accused Amadeo Hangdaan for the crime of rape. Whereupon, the
 
accused interposed the present appeal, with denial as his only defense.
x
Such testimony of the victim, which was given credence by the trial court, suffices to support the
conclusion that the accused Hangdaan committed the crime of rape. For it is settled rule that for rape to
be consummated, it is not essential that there be perfect, complete and full penetration of the vagina. 
Mere entry of the labia or lips of the female organ without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the
vagina, is sufficient to warrant conviction for consummated rape.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED in all respects.  Costs against the accused-
appellant.

SO ORDERED.
Pp vs Campuhan

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC

G.R. No. 129433             March 30, 2000

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff,

vs.
PRIMO CAMPUHAN Y BELLO accused.

FACTS:
On April 25, 1996, as Corazon was busy preparing her children’s drinks, she heard one of her daughters
cry, “Ayo’ko, ayo’ko” prompting her to rush upstairs. Thereupon, she saw Primo Campuhan inside her
children’s room kneeling before Crysthel whose pajamas or “jogging pants” and panty were already
removed, while his short pants were down to his knees. According to Corazon, Primo was forcing his
penis into Crysthel’s vagina. Physical examination of the victim yielded negative results. No evident sign
of extra-genital physical injury was noted by the medico-legal officer on Crysthel’s body as her hymen
was intact and its orifice was only 0.5 cm in diameter . On May 27, 1997, Primo Campuhan was found
guilty of statutory rape.

ISSUE:
WON Campuhan is guilty of consummated statutory rape?

HELD:
No. Campuhan is found guilty of attempted rape.
In Orita, the court held that rape was consummated from the moment the offender had carnal
knowledge of the victim since by it he attained his objective. All the elements of the offense were already
present and nothing more was left for the offender to do, having performed all the acts necessary to
produce the crime and accomplish it. The court ruled then that perfect penetration was not essential, any
penetration of the female organ by the male organ, however slight, was sufficient. Even without rupture
of the hymen or laceration of the vagina, was sufficient to warrant conviction of consummated rape.
However, the prosecution utterly failed to discharge its onus in proving that Primo’s penis was able to
penetrate Crysthel’s vagina.
Under Art 6, in relation to Art. 335, of the RPC, the rape is attempted when the offender commences of
rape directly by overt acts, and does performs all the acts of execution which should produce the crime
rape by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. All the elements of
attempted rape – and only attempted rape – are present in the instant case, hence, the accused should
be punished only for it.
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G. R. No. 160188              June 21, 2007

ARISTOTEL VALENZUELA y NATIVIDAD, petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HON. COURT OF APPEALS NACHURA, respondents.

DECISION

Facts:

While a security guard was manning his post the open parking area of a supermarket, he saw the
accused, Aristotel Valenzuela, hauling a push cart loaded with cases of detergent and unloaded
them where his co-accused, Jovy Calderon, was waiting. Valenzuela then returned inside the
supermarket, and later emerged with more cartons of detergent. Thereafter, Valenzuela hailed a
taxi and started loading the boxes of detergent inside. As the taxi was about to leave the security
guard asked Valenzuela for the receipt of the merchandise. The accused reacted by fleeing on foot,
but were subsequently apprehended at the scene. The trial court convicted both Valenzuela and
Calderon of the crime of consummated theft. Valenzuela appealed before the Court of Appeals,
arguing that he should only be convicted of frustrated theft since he was not able to freely dispose
of the articles stolen. The CA affirmed the trial court’s decision, thus the Petition for Review was
filed before the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner Valenzuela is guilty of frustrated theft.

Held:

No. Article 6 of the RPC provides that a felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its
execution and accomplishment are present. In the crime of theft, the following elements should be
present – (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3)
that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the
owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidating of
persons or force upon things. The court held that theft is produced when there is deprivation of
personal property by one with intent to gain. Thus, it is immaterial that the offender is able or unable to
freely dispose the property stolen since he has already committed all the acts of execution and the
deprivation from the owner has already ensued from such acts. Therefore, theft cannot have a
frustrated stage, and can only be attempted or consummated.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 99838 October 23, 1997

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
ERNESTO ENRIQUEZ y ROSALES and WILFREDO ROSALES y YUCOT, accused-appellants.

FACTS:
1. Informant “Danny” told Sgt. Cerillo that a person called “Bulag” was looking for prospective buyers of
marijuana.
2. This became the impetus for the buy-bust operation conducted by Sgt. Cerillo and his team of Anti-Drug
Abuse Movement officers.
3. Maramot, one of the ADAM officers who posed as a buyer, executed the deal with Enriquez and Rosales
(petitioners).

4. Right before the deal was concluded, Maramot announced that she was a policewoman and
they subsequently arrested Rosales. Enriquez was also apprehended eventually.
5. Trial court charged Rosales and Enriquez with sale and delivery of marijuana and sentenced them to life
imprisonment with a fine of P30,000.
6. Petitioners assailed the decision of the trial court hence this appeal.
7. Rosales asserted that his act of carrying the sack of marijuana (more than 750 grams) is a mere attempt
to deliver the prohibited drug. Since the sack was still within his control, he could have refused to
deliver the prohibited drug. He asserts that he was still in the subjective phase of the crime.

ISSUES:

WoN petitioner Rosales should be held accountable for merely attempted delivery of marijuana

Held:
1. NO. The rules regarding the Stages of Commission of a felony are inapplicable to offenses governed by
special laws. Unfortunately for petitioner Rosales, the crime with which he is being charged is penalized
by a special law. The incomplete delivery claimed by Rosales, granting that it is true, is thus
inconsequential. The act of conveying prohibited drugs to an unknown destination has been held to be
punishable, and it is immaterial whether or not the place of destination of the prohibited drug is
reached.

RULING:
 Wherefore, the questioned decision of the RTC of Manila, finding appellants Ernesto Enriquez and Wilfredo
Rosales guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime punishable by Section 4, Article II, of RA No. 6425, as
amended, and imposing on them the penalty of life imprisonment and the payment of the fine of P30,000 is
AFFIRMED. Costs against appellants.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 168852           September 30, 2008

SHARICA MARI L. GO-TAN, Petitioner,

vs.
SPOUSES PERFECTO C. TAN and JUANITA L. TAN, Respondents.*

DECISION

FACTS:

Sharica Mari Go-Tan (petitioner) and Steven Tan were married and have two female children. Barely six years into the marriage, petitioner filed
a Petition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Protective Order (TPO) against Steven and her parents-in-law, herein respondents,
before the RTC. She alleged that Steven, in conspiracy with respondents, were causing verbal, psychological and economic abuses upon her in
violation of R.A. No. 9262.

The RTC granted the petition and issued a TPO.

Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss with Opposition to the Issuance of Permanent Protection Order Ad Cautelam, contending that the RTC
lacked jurisdiction over their persons since, as parents-in-law of the petitioner, they were not covered by R.A. No. 9262.

The RTC dismissed the case as to respondents on the ground that, being the parents-in-law of the petitioner, they were not included/covered as
respondents under R.A. No. 9262.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondents parents-in-law of petitioner, may be included in the petition for the Issuance of a Protective Order in accordance
with R.A. NO. 9262.

RULING:The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner.

Section 3 of R.A. No. 9262 defines ”[v]iolence against women and their children” as any act or a series of acts committed by any person against
a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he
has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to
result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion,
harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty.

While the said provision provides that the offender be related or connected to the victim by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual
or dating relationship, it does not preclude the application of the principle of conspiracy under the RPC.
Indeed, Section 47 of R.A. No. 9262 expressly provides for the suppletory application of the RPC, thus:

SEC. 47. Suppletory Application. – For purposes of this Act, the Revised Penal Code and other applicable laws, shall have suppletory application.
Thus, the principle of conspiracy may be applied to R.A. No. 9262. For once conspiracy or action in concert to achieve a criminal design is
shown, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators, and the precise extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary,
since all the conspirators are principals.